IMAGINING OTHER
Political Philosophy Part 2
pp13 Liberalism: John Rawls - a modern
‘liberal’ thinker - 1921 - 2002
Links:
Imagining Other Index page
Political Philosophy Contents Page
Summary/Outline of these notes: (NB these are
incomplete – much is still in rough note form)
A. Summary of Rawls’s achievement (more detailed notes
follow this summary, section B):
He attempted - in the Theory
of Justice 1971 - to provide a solid theoretical basis for modern liberal
ideas: although liberalism is now the predominant political theory in America
and Europe (Marxism is in decline) no-one has tried to say why we should
believe it (since the classical writers of the 18th and 19th
centuries – Locke, Mill, Kant and perhaps Hegel).
His method was to suggest we
carry out a thought experiment: if we imagine ourselves to be in an environment
where there are not yet any laws or governmental institutions (this is similar
to classical a ‘state of nature’ argument, but note that Rawls is not
suggesting there ever was such a state – rather, as stated, this is a thought
experiment), and if none of has any social position as yet (we do not know if
we will be rich or poor, have power or not etc – what Rawls describes as our
being behind ‘a veil of ignorance’), then what would be the basic principles we
would want to see put in place in order to arrange society in a fair way?
Justice, therefore is seen as
‘fairness’ – that is, it is procedural – rather than being concerned with an
‘end-state’ such as equality.
Rawls’s formulation of the two fundamental principles for the
organisation of a fair society are:
1.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of
equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all
under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Simply put (see Heywood,
2003, p 62), (i) everyone would recognise the need for individual freedom,
provided it didn’t hurt anyone else (the first principle) and (ii) people would
regard an egalitarian society as more fair (as they would want to avoid
poverty) – though some measure of inequality would be needed to provide an
incentive for people to work (he called this – his second principle – the
‘difference principle’). Another way of interpreting the ‘difference principle’
is to say that inequalities are acceptable provided they can be argued to
benefit the less well-off in some way. As Jane O’Grady points out (obituary of
G.A. Cohen, Guardian 11.08.09), Nigel Lawson justified his tax cuts in 1988 by
arguing that they provided incentives for the production of wealth which would
then benefit everyone…
Cohen argued, further, that
the ‘incentive’ argument echoes Marxist arguments about the ‘determinism’ that
is accepted as part of capitalism: the better-off cannot work well without
extra financial incentives. It is therefore hardly consistent with the first
principle, the need for liberty. Moreover, as O’Grady says, it ‘confuses the
relationship between facts and moral principles…’ Finally, surely the well-off
are not entitled to use such arguments: this is like a kidnapper saying that
the relatives ought to pay him a ransom because that way everyone benefits –
any moral argument has to meet the “interpersonal test” – i.e. it has to work
whoever is putting it forward (‘the identity of anyone proposing it has to be
irrelevant’).
B. Notes on Rawls:
1
Life
2
Appraisal
3 Context
4 Aims
- general, and in relation to other thinkers
5
Particular aims and method
6 Rawls’s procedure and formulation of principles of
justice
7
Second part of T of J makes further
points
8
Political Liberalism 1993
9
criticisms of T of J
10
responses by Rawls and further points made
Notes:
1 Life:
Professor at Harvard
Theory of Justice 1971 – his
first book, took nearly 20 years to write...
Political Liberalism
1993
Collected Papers 1999
2 Appraisal:
1. (BR – see #References
at foot of page): “the most important
English-speaking political philosopher of his generation” – possibly of the
century in any language!
2. Mixture of bold thought experiment, with conceptual
rigour, and historical imagination – more or less invented analytic political
thought....
3. (AV): social liberalism,
which has influenced Labour Party
3 Context:
1. Little political
philosophy in USA from mid-19th century to post World War II, except
for Marxism. Because of complacency
about (or acceptance of) western way of life?
Also remember domination of linguistic philosophy.
2. Then Marxism came under
attack (late ‘50s especially) – e.g. from Hayek and Popper (also from within –
dissidents, and in European Communist Parties). But neither Popper nor Hayek
had much effect.
3. Rawls saw that liberalism
lacked an ideology....
4 Aims - general, and in
relation to other thinkers:
1. (RS): attempts to combine liberal ideal of political
obligation with re-distributive conception of social justice... i.e. liberal plus socialist ideas.
2. (AV): Links with Paine: substantive equality and
distributive justice; we ought to accord each other equal opportunities for
development, and argues that rational self-interest leads to same ends
as benevolence and altruism.
3. (AV): Rejects: natural rights, utilitarianism, pure
liberalism (e.g. Hayek, esp. in role of state)
4. (RS): Is anti-utilitarian, but incorporates rational choice
ideas – see also (MR)
5. Kantian: sense of duty,
internal moral qualities/intentions (“deontological”)
5 Particular aims and
method:
1. to find principles
underlying our convictions of justice, (i.e. even if there is
disagreement on what justice is, there is agreement on the need for it…)
2. so is concerned with
rules/procedures.. especially, way of assigning rights and duties
3. T of J p 4. Identifies two
principles, which he refines later in the book… (see below for how he arrives
at these, and what they consist of)
4. then can use these
general/procedural rules to settle more difficult problems – dialectical
progression from abstract principles through applications which pose dilemmas
to revised principles, until "reflective equilibrium" is
reached – i.e. political philosophy is rational
5. or can see as an “ideal
theory” (requiring “strict compliance”) on basis of which can decide specific
(“partial compliance”) issues (e.g. civil disobedience, see below) T of J p 8 –
9
6. gives human rights
philosophical foundation to protect individual rights against the common
good, and thereby put utilitarianism on the defensive: T of J p 3 - 4
7. inequalities are only justified if
benefit the worst-off (– by
use of the “difference principle” as a principle of distribution)
6
Rawls’s procedure and formulation of principles of justice:
1. hypothetical social
contract [T of J p 4 –5] involving:
(a)
“original position” – abstraction from actual social arrangements to
appeal to rationality alone ( = state of nature – but differs from earlier
thinkers on this), and
(b)
“veil of ignorance”… p 12.
In these circumstances, any
rational person would come up with certain general principles and rules for a
just society… (see below)
2. this is justice as
fairness – because the original position is fair (procedural emphasis) –
also (RS): procedural because all
arrangements are just which can be traced back to the two principles - not
primarily concerned with end-state (because liberty overrides redistribution) –
the “right” is prior to (more important, more logical than) “the good” – can’t
sacrifice anyone’s rights to some “good”
3. there are two principles,
(a) of rights to liberty and (b) concerning inequalities i.e. the “difference
principle” - a principle of distribution: see T of J p. 60, and refined on
p. 302:
First Principle:
Each person is to have an
equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Second Principle:
Social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest
benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices
and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
7 Second part of T of J
makes further points e.g.:
1. role of the state….
2. need bill of rights, bi-cameral
legislature and separation of powers, rule of law, in order to ensure the two
principles are implemented
3. state could be socialist
or capitalist, but recommends: compulsory and subsidised state education;
positive employment policies, anti-monopoly legislation, national minimum wage
( = welfare state?)
4. morally incumbent on us
not to produce policies which impoverish future generations (“just savings”
policy) – e.g. UK pension funds running out of cash...
5. civil disobedience
possible if procedures are not implemented (? become inadequate)
8 Political Liberalism
1993
1. accepted criticisms that T
of J had rested on liberal prejudices which had been half-articulated and were
debatable – i.e. liberal conception of good life: each of us has a duty to
search out our good from alternatives – but this not suit e.g. Catholicism - or
any other doctrine where fidelity and submission are more important than
autonomy or experimentation (BR)
9 Criticisms of T of J:
1. (BR) argues his conception is
“political not metaphysical” (see below on status of the theory): point is to
show how any society can decide its principles of justice but the principles in
T of J, might not be acceptable to other societies and traditions
2. Nozick criticises for
being “end-state” oriented (rather than primarily [or sufficiently] concerned
with rightness of transaction) (RS) i.e.: is the original position in fact teleological, in the sense that
Rawls knew beforehand where he wanted to go?
3. (RS):
Status of theory is unclear: epistemological, and therefore binding on
all rational human beings, (or: a rationalisation of moral intuitions that may
be rationally rejected) - or: political i.e. if can show is not philosophically
“grounded”, but is based on what a community decides, then principles of
justice would vary among different communities ( = relativism)
4. Sandel: mistaken to think
is epistemological… and ignores social context, i.e. fact that peoples’ wants
etc are essentially determined by society and history (and (me): their moral principles are too!)
5. Isn’t the account of
peoples’ decisions in the original position an over-cautious one? Does the
maximin principle reflect how people think? Don’t people, rather, try to
maximise own benefit, or take risks?
6. Alasdair MacIntyre: real
political thinking is just not like this, the exercise is stage-managed,
ignores real context
10 Responses by Rawls and
further points made:
1. Not merely an apologist
for liberal capitalism? In Pref. to French edition of T of J argues his
principles are not realisable in a welfare state, only in a “liberal socialist”
or “egalitarian property-owning” democracy
2. In “Fifty years After
Hiroshima” he criticises the dropping of the Bomb – violation of laws of war
3. Accepted feminist
criticisms of his position on the family (a natural non-political unit): may be
source of injustice and of unjust desires – state should act to advance
interests of wives and children...
Justice as Fairness by
John Rawls – review from Amazon:
Few philosophers have made as much
of a splash with a single book as John Rawls did with the 1971 publication of A
Theory of Justice. Thirty years later, Justice as Fairness rearticulates the
main themes of his earlier work and defends it against the swarm of criticisms
it has attracted. Throughout the book, Rawls continues to defend his well-known
thought experiment in which an "original position"--a sort of
prenatal perspective ignorant of our race, class, and gender--provides the basis
for formulating ethical principles that result in a harmonious liberal state.
In addition, he supplies carefully worked-out responses and, in some
cases, reformulations of
his theory. Those coming to Rawls for the first time will find a lucid portrayal
of his position; those embroiled in the ongoing debate will encounter a closely
argued and subtle rejoinder to his adversaries. Readers will be pleased that
the daunting volumes of Rawls's previous work have been distilled to a
digestible 214 pages. --Eric de Place © 1998-2001 Amazon.com, Inc. und
Tochtergesellschaften
The Law of Peoples by John Rawls
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Lectures on the History of Moral
Philosophy by John Rawls, Barbara Herman (Herausgeber)
Political Liberalism (John Dewey
Essays in Philosophy) by John Rawls
References:
(Main Sources used)
(AV): Andrew
Vincent: Modern Political Ideologies:
(BR): Ben
Rogers (New Statesman 20/9/99) review of Collected Papers: John Rawls ed.
Samuel Freeman (Harvard UP)
(RS): Roger
Scruton: (Dictionary of Political Thought):
(MR): M.
Ramsay: What’s Wrong with Liberalism? 1997